Application Receipt Date: 070525 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's DD Form 293 and attached document. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 010123 Discharge Received: Date: 010207 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 001031-Disrespectful in language toward a SSG, (000802), (Company Grade). Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 781130 Current ENL Date: 990718 Current ENL Term: NIF Years Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 03 Mos, 20 Days Total Service: 04 Yrs, 03 Mos, 20 Days Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 91B10 Medical Spec GT: 105 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AGCM, ASR, OSR, ALB V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Richmond, VA 23233 Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states he is a Financial Services Professional specializing in Retirement planning, Estate planning, and Executive benefits. He further states he is married and has 3 children. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 23 January 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct ( 29 December 2000, he failed to be at his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0530 formation, on or about 2 August 2000, he was disrespectful in language toward toward an NCO, to wit: saying ""you're a fucking joke, on on about 6 April 200, failed to be at his appointed place of duty, to wit: HHB COB formation, on on about 4 April 200, failed to be at his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0530 at aid station, on or between 25 January 2000 and 13 September 2000, he failed to pass four Army Physical Fitness Tests), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period od enlistment unde review, the issue and document he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge, and therfore recommends that relef be denied in this case. The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 14 November 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: Witnesses/Observers: Exhibits Submitted: VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder